Bedroom tax appeals

There’s a huge thirst for information about the bedroom tax and its possible impact here, as evidenced by our sold out briefing session last month.  At the session, we looked at some of the key arguments against this policy that have been heard by tribunals in Great Britain.  These cases will be of great interest to housing and welfare professionals.

The majority of these cases were heard by First Tier Tribunals (FTTs). These decisions aren’t binding here but could be persuasive arguments for anyone advising or representing clients who will be affected by this policy if, and when, it is introduced in Northern Ireland.

Disability discrimination

A group of 10 appellants argued that the bedroom tax discriminates against people with disabilities, who have a need for accommodation larger than the rules allow because of their disability. One of their grounds of appeal was that the measures were unlawfully discriminatory under article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) because they fail to provide for the needs of people with disabilities.

The Court of Appeal ruled that whilst the bedroom tax does discriminate against people with disabilities, the discriminatory effect of the policy is justified. Furthermore, it was of the opinion that the needs of disabled people subject to the bedroom tax are being met by means of discretionary housing payments (DHPs) and that, for the appellants and other disabled persons in a similar situation, their needs for assistance with payment of their rent were in fact better dealt with by DHPs than housing benefit.

The appellants are considering whether to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Shared care of children

The Applicant, in this case, had shared care of his daughter, who stayed with him at weekends and during school holidays.

Under the size criteria the applicant was only assessed as needing a 1 bed property and was subject to the bedroom tax. He appealed his housing costs decision to the FTT on the basis that Article 8 of the ECHR guaranteed a right to family life.

The FTT accepted the Applicant’s argument that his daughter could be resident in more than one place at a time. The FTT found that the child was actually resident in both the applicant’s home and her mother’s home and that the applicant’s home couldn’t be regarded as a temporary or transient residence. Regarding both properties as a home was crucial to the well-being of the child.

Accordingly, the FTT found that the regulations had to be read subject to Article 1 Protocol 1, Article 8 and Article 14 of the ECHR, to the effect that, in the circumstances of this appeal, the Appellant was entitled to an additional bedroom to accommodate his daughter staying overnight with him.

Definition of bedroom

In another case, the claimant lived in the property with his wife and adult son. The property was classed as a 4 bedroom property by the landlord and a 25% bedroom tax deduction levied.

The FTT looked at the physical size of the rooms, each of which was below 70sq ft.

The FTT decided that ‘bedroom’ is not defined by the legislation. It found that neither of the two smallest rooms were bedrooms because

• they do not contain beds,
• they are not used for sleeping and
• their size meant they could only be occupied by a child under 10.

The FTT held that the property contained 2 bedrooms and the bedroom tax should not apply.

How much time qualifies as being resident?

Another case centred on whether a property could be considered the home of someone who regularly stayed in a care facility.

The appellant, a 60 year old sole tenant, lived in a 3 bedroom property and was subject to a 25% bedroom tax levy.

She argued against the deduction because

• her adult son lived in a care home, but regularly stayed in one of the bedrooms for 1 to 3 nights each week.  This bedroom had been adapted for his needs
• the other bedroom was 42 sq ft, so not large enough to be considered a bedroom, and used to store her son’s belongings and disability related equipment.

The tribunal felt that the property should be treated as the son’s home.  The regulations do not define the amount of time that someone must spend in a property to be considered resident.  The son’s main residence was with his mother and the care home should be considered respite care.

The third bedroom was discounted, as its size was below the minimum size of a room taken into account when considering the overcrowding space standard.

Training on bedroom tax

We looked at these judgments in detail during our recent seminar.  Contact us if you’d like to find out more about this seminar or you’d like us to deliver this seminar for your staff.